Let me rephrase the question, since the 'what rights have you lost' question is misleading.
What is the down side to this NSA wiretapping program? Since there aren't any allegations of wrongdoing, other than the programs existence, what harm is there in having the NSA screen calls from Al Qaida agents? Assuming this program is exactly what the NYT claims it is, i.e. telephonic intercepts of calls from Al Qaida agents overseas to persons within the U.S., what is the problem?
There you go ... much better question, and takes the only point I was making in my post 468 to Howlin - the question "what rights have you lost" is not useful to probe the academic question of legality and Constitutionality.
Why do I call it academic? Because the President has awesome power - Lincoln violated the habeas corpus provision in the Constitution and "got away with it," and the fact that Milligan was eventually vindicated is at the end of the difference of opinion, "academic." He WAS incarcerated, he WAS denied acces to the courts, and there was nothing he could do about it. "So goes the war."
In general, there is a risk of harm in permitting one branch of government to run without checks from at least one other branch. Obviously, there is NO downside to snooping on those who do wrong, the question is how much intrusion is acceptable in the tradeoff; how much oversight should the public expect, if any, of executive action?
The War on Terror presents some very difficult challenges in balancing intrusion on innocent (which has cost and provacy aspects) with opportunity to stop attacks. One thing that I fear is that with each successful attack (and no defensive scheme is impermeable), there will be a call for more government. I predict that there will be a call for gun registration and confiscation in the next two or three generations, but it'll be for our own good.